Marriage held valid on the basis of cogent and clear evidence adduced.

S.K.Krishnan, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court, the appellants under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have come forward with this appeal.

.2. Thefactual background of this appeal, in a nutshell, is as follows: Defendants in O.S.No.1 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengleput, are the appellants. Plaintiff/respondent filed a said suit for partition of the suit properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one half share on the ground that he is the only son of the first defendant. After partition in the year 1975, the first defendant wanted to marry again and since the same was disputed by the plaintiff as well as his mother Dhanalakshmi, they have been living separately. Taking advantage of the same, the first defendant’s brothers and their sons were attempting to sell the suit properties belonged to the first defendant and therefore, the plaintiff urged the first defendant for partition of the suit properties. On 110. 1985, the plaintiff filed a petition before the Sub Registrar Office, Chengleput, objecting to the registration of any document being executed by the first defendant. The Sub Registrar, Chengalpattu, informed the plaintiff that his remedy lies only in the Civi l Court. On 210. 1985, the plaintiff issued a registered notice to the first defendant demanding partition. A reply was sent by the first appellant stating that the plaintiff is not his son and the first defendant still is a celibate. The first defendant also claimed that since the properties were owned by him, he has got every right to deal with the same in any manner. Hence, the said suit was filed by the plaintiff.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants, assailing the concurrent findings of this Court and the Court below, would contend that the first appellant has never married and still he is leading a celibacy life and therefore, the said Dhamannal is neither the wife of the first appellant nor the plaintiff is the son of the first appellant and in such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the suit properties which were owned by the first appellant and thereby he is having absolute right over the suit properties.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent, supporting the judgments of this Court as well as the Court below, would contend that the first defendant married one Dhanalakshmi in June 1955 at Vedal Village and she gave birth to the plaintiff, namely, Sridhar, and therefore, the plaintiff is having every right to claim his share in the suit properties and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.

6. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of this Court and the Court below. The respondent herein, claims to be the son of the first appellant, filed a partition suit before the Subordinate Judge, Chenglepattu.

7. The main contention of the respondent before the Subordinate Judge is that, he is entitled to claim a half share in the suit properties on the basis that he is the only legitimate son of the first appellant.

8. It is to be seen that the first appellant herein totally denied the relationship of father and son and has gone to the extent of denying the marital relationship with the mother of the plaintiff one Dhanammal. It was his contention that no marriage was taken place between him and the mother of the respondent, namely, Dhannammal at any point of time and thereby, he totally denied that the respondent was never born to the first appellant. However, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff directing the first appellant to allot a half share to the respondent/plaintiff in the suit properties.

.9. As against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, the appellants herein, have pr